Sir

I don’t think those Indians who lived under Mughal dominion called themselves Mughalese or something. They were Indian then too, Hindustani that was the term, and they were under foreign dominion. The Mughals knew they were ruling over the Indian people, so did the British and other Europeans. It would be a bit strange to expect the natives of India to adopt a European term to describe themselves to foreigners on their own land!

Sir

I think we risk running round in circles; that people probably did not self-describe themselves as Indians among themselves did not mean they weren’t Indian. Inside your home, do you describe yourself as British, English or Jim or Nancy? I struggle to see what’s implied by what you say. The Republic of India today is a manifestation of the Indian national consciousness. To suggest the Indian people would somehow stop being “Indian” in the absence of the Republic is lazy thinking. The Indian people, together with a notion of commonality, was there long before nationalism.

Most Indians even today do not meet or care about outsiders. They were Indian in that they were of Indian and no other place, and there was a notion of what was Indian and what was not. What I am trying to say is you do not need to be nationally conscious to be of a nation or a culture. Suffice it to say if you follow a living pattern with fundamental differences from others, and there are many like you, you are a nation. Nationalism arose in most modern countries out of a sense of grievance to an “other” usually outside party. It could also, I suppose, arise from a lack of animosity between people. It is this I presume which makes Indians a nation.

Try this logical exercise. If by Indian you mean anyone who is resident in India at a given time, then by implication, aren’t the British Indians as well? Wouldn’t it be apt to describe Indians more in terms of what is and who are not Indian rather than trying to bracket Indians within some arbitrary measure? So, the culture of Arabia or Iran is not Indian. The culture of Europe is not Indian; neither is that of China. Same goes for the people. India is not a free-for-all. No nation is.

You up may actually be factually wrong there. The Muslims of the Middle Ages rampaged through India and Indians by slaughtering “Indians” for following Indian culture and traditions. It would be daft of “Indians” not to know why they were being hunted down by barbarians. If they did not know what Indians were, they definitely knew who were invaders. I’ll end there.

Sir

I humbly disagree. Islam, like Christianity, is a Middle Eastern monolithic doctrine alien to India and anathema to the mores of India - they made as much clear when they created a nation of thin air out of British India which today is our western neighbor. It was an Indian lack of decisiveness that did not see the transfer through 100%. It is only a matter of their remnants in India getting sensitized to their doctrine’s rather violent teachings for them to hunt the natives in the land of the kaffir. As you will know, the main security issues bedeviling the country are purely related to this and this is mainly what keeps Indians anxious politically speaking. You can have your emotions about it, but like you said, facts don’t change. Know what is what, who is who and which is which. They are free to live in India, however, in peace with whom they find themselves amidst.

I have spent a good bit of time on this thread explaining what I think proves that the Republic of India is not a gift of the British. The area under the paramountcy of British India was much larger than today’s territory of the Republic of India and included a lot of bits which are not traditionally taken as part of India - Singapore, Trucial States, Myanmar, Yemen etc. The successor to British India most closely corresponding to the Republic - the Dominion of India - was much smaller than today’s territory of the Republic of India as it did not include the princely states which were nearly 35% of today’s Republic. It were Indian leaders who went about the painful task of securing the accession of these princely states one by one not Britain. “India owes its existence to British rule” is a loud statement but without depth or substance. At best, it has the value of a cheer-up line for a Britain that is fast reneging its role as a power of note. Maybe, with Brexit round the corner, the British need something to boost their confidence. Or, with other, truly artificial British creations such as Iraq, Yemen or Sudan biting the dust recently, they need something to call a success, which happens to be the country of the Indians. History has happened, and we know of no alternate universe, so happenstance that Britain were the power at the time Indians were slowly regaining their dominion of their land from Asiatic aliens anyway. If anything, the British built upon existing state structures they found at the time. Your premise has the benefit of being completely fact-free.

India and Indians owe the British nothing.

See, I don’t necessarily view the British Empire as a bad thing. For a nobody people from the western edges of Europe to build up an oceanic empire in the Indian Ocean over a considerable stretch of time is a marvelous enterprise and needs recounting. Credit where it’s due. But British were not the only, or in some cases even the main, agents of change, esp in a complex polity such as India. Just broad-stroking with a fact-free statement such as you have made makes me wonder whether you are even British; as far as I know, they are sticklers for fact, context and nuance, all of which are missing.

Sir

I’d find myself a bit out of my element talking about development economics but in general, as the early leaders of the Indian Republic, inspired as they were by that moronic socialist Harold Lasky, ended up veering very sharply to the Left, embarking on a forced program of import substitution and exacerbating her precarious economic situation. The situation did not worsen from before 1947, but it did not improve either. Only with the introduction of newer varieties of crops did India turn the corner from aid recipient to self-sufficient.

Indian history, at least what is taught in schools, is contentious to say the least. Problem is, the subject is so politicized that an honest inquiry is just out of the question most of the time. I’d suggest that history be taken off as a subject in schools, to be taken up as an optional subject of research in universities. I have grown up on the state-sanctioned version of history, only to find out that most of it, while staying mostly true, misses key details which changes the context entirely. For instance, that it were troops from Punjab that helped put down the rebellion in 1857. Tipu of Mysore is treated as a freedom fighter as opposed to the mad jihadi tyrant that he was. The valiant, organized struggles of various native states and leaders against the Turks and then the Europeans are barely given attention, as it would go completely at odds with the secular narrative being forced down children’s throats. The defeat of the Dutch by Travancore, when the Dutch were the leading oceanic empire, is ignored for lack of comprehension. The role of the Japanese in helping end British rule in India is also not given much attention. The history of so many parts of India are also ignored, thanks perhaps to lack of space and term time. For a land as diverse, rich and varied as India, her history books do her no justice.

I suppose this is because of the need for validation from various interest groups and political narratives. It is sad that history has become subject to political football; it ought to be researched in universities, allowing space for competing narratives.

Sir

If any war in the world involved hugs and kisses, please let me know. Britain having scraped through the Second War barely alive thanks to American help, gets to be in the lucky position where she can command the narrative of the time for all time to come. Credit for pressure to give up her empire goes to a number of players, not many of them in England. The Americans pledged support to Britain on the precondition that freedom would be given to the colonies, as the war was presumably being fought in the name of freedom.

To those who understand that history is written by the victors, it helps to see it from the other side just for balance. And in that view, the propaganda emanating from Japan at the time was, of you viewed it, just as convincing and just, if not more. Other products of Japanese militarism of the time include independence heroes such as Aung San and Suharto. For once, it is most cruelly satisfying to know that the British got a taste of their own medicine in Asia - the visceral hatred reserves for the ‘slopes’ by the British is proof enough that they were given a rightful humbling. Indian soldiers were involved in the effort, not for her own freedom sadly, which is why the freedom to not be involved in other people’s wars is in my view the primary meaning of independence. The British are masters of propaganda and pomp, which is why a lot of the history of the time, upon first reading, would seem as the way you’d like to see it. When balanced, a lot of other perspectives come into view and add nuance, sometimes sufficient to change the entire narrative.

I would like to delve on one point as well that strains through your argument. Britain, or British rule, is taken as a pantomime villain by the popular propaganda in India. By suggesting as you have done that today’s India is Britains’ creation (which I have disproved, as earlier), you attempt at taking up that role with some relish. I think it plays to a running narrative in India which completely distorts in my view the real questions facing Indian politics of that time as well as now - that of religious harmony between Hindus and Muslims. It goes on the lines of “See, we were all united against those evil Britishers who divided our country then. So why can’t we be peaceful now?” Completely ignore Muslim nationalism starting 1906, the Caliphate Movement of the 1920s, the call for separation in 1940, as well as the brutal history of the past several hundred years. The two-nation theory is seen as revolting in today’s popular discourse and in supposedly polite society. I can’t see why it does not make sense. It is in my view the most sensible analysis of the Muslims and their desire for apartheid from the rest of the natives. Forget empire. Forget the British. On a day-to-day basis, like Ambedkar has observed, Muslims live their lives as separately as possible from the others. More importantly from a national perspective, they value different things. They strive for different futures. It is criminal, in my view, to forcibly assimilate two such vastly different cultures under the guise of secularism and tolerance. Please bear in mind that the Indian constitution of 1950 did not have any provisions for secularism or socialism - it was understood that people will be decent to each other. The words socialist and secular were added through an amendment in 1967.

May I correct you that Britain is not a secular state, yet people regardless of characteristics are equal before the law. Same is the case in India as well. What secular essentially means is forced assimilation. It is illogical at a practical level and exists in fantasy. Which is why the biggest advocates of it are found in politics, media and entertainment, all of whom live rarefied lives at a great distance from commoners. What this forced assimilation does is to leave people insecure as regards their political rights, which may change depending on the demographics of the place. See, I don’t think Hindus would ever mind Sikhs becoming a majority in many parts of India; neither would they have a problem with Buddhism becoming once more a dominant religion.

No one forgets the original demands of Pakistan - that Muslim majority areas of the country be given separate nationhood. The Muslims betray little indication that they regret this decision or that such and such will not be repeated. You tell me, how are Hindus or other cultural Indians supposed to feel secure about the situation, especially in the light to rapidly changing demographics. The evil part of the politicians is this - they know the two cultures don’t mix and that there is unease and friction between them. By forcing them to live in the same space, they are keeping the pot boiling beneath them, just enough so that it does not boil over yet not completely turning the gas off, so that insecurities can be harvested come election time. The radicals in this scheme are useful idiots, serving as pantomimes.

Please read Ambedkar on Pakistan or the Breakup of India; I agree a lot with what he has to say on the subject.

Secularism forces a contest between the Hindus versus the Muslims on political rights, with the state finding a role for itself as arbiter, demanding payments for its upkeep and keeping the peace through taxes and various penalties. It is a readymade route towards servitude. If the political rights of the Muslims were fixed in a geographic space made especially for them ie Pakistan and Bangladesh, this feeling of insecurity amongst Hindus would completely vanish. This tedious exercise of squaring the circle has made Indians very political, and completely inefficient economically. As an Indian, it hurts me to no end to know that Korea, a far poorer country originally, has grown to become one of the richest countries in the world today. While most countries of East Asia were busy getting to work, we Indians were busy trying to bring Ram and Allah together. 60 years later, the results speak for themselves.

See, I live outside India and enjoy no political rights where I stay. I could have a hundred kids and not hurt the sentiments of the locals, for I have no political rights or benefits. On the other hand, were I given political rights and let loose in the bedroom, the existing locals would really be bothered. It is the same with the native Indians and India.

As as I have mentioned earlier, I speak from the perspective of a non-nationalist conservative Indian. I am not really bothered with the state. We all have limited time, so it is important to seek the path of least resistance so that our lives can be lived as peacefully and without conflict and with as much happiness as possible. Keeping Hindus insecure about their fundamental political status by slow-boiling then using utopian tropes such as secularism and socialism does not meet this objective. You will have people getting constantly insecure when you force assimilation on them against their will - that was the whole point of independence - to not act against one’s will. I have mentioned ultras on all sides as pantomimes with little actual impact. I do not for once suggest that a transfer of Muslims to their dedicated homeland in South Asia should be a painful, retributive exercise filled with violence; it can be a planned, mutually agreed exercise carried out in a responsible, phased, compensatory, non-violent manner, something like what happened Greeks and Turks a century ago. The pity is there are no leaders to carry out the task with the requisite sense of responsibility; they too have an incentive - an India of Indians without resentment is one that will not need much governing - Indians have proven across the world to be among the most law-abiding of people. You British are having fun of late with your Muslim minority; I’d imagine you’d be more informed about the issues by now.

History will always be rewritten by those who feel that some of narrative jars. Which is why I strongly believe that it requires a bit of maturity to read history, as reading only one version of events from a long time ago, and that too from one perspective, would lead to a misinformed opinion. It should be taken away from schools and on to universities. I do decry one British contribution; the role of state-led education has greatly expanded under the systems they introduced, thereby making history - a record of mostly politics - an issue of contention.

Oh good sir

Well, you’ve got an example right on India’s western border as well as eastern flank of Muslims wanting to be separate. That’s 400 million examples of the type you are looking for. I find it hard to buy your nuance that different Muslims have different attitudes towards separateness. That Hindus are supposed to pledge their entire futures based on this question. And the Hindus are supposed to continuously wonder what state of mind the Muslims are in - whether unite or separate. This is what was done by the imposing of forced cultural assimilation or secularism. What we witness in different parts of India is a manifestation of the utter failure of it all. It would be comical were it not so serious. Where the Muslims don’t want a separate nation, they just want to drive the Hindus out. Works just fine.

I wouldn’t take Kerala as a beacon of anything positive. Perhaps no other state has been so thoroughly boiled in Marxist social engineering and cultural reorganization muck over a period of 60 years as have the people of Kerala. There are no people in all India today who are as culturally demoralized, politically divided and economically unproductive as these guys. There is no state that is so seeped in identity politics (religion, caste) as Kerala. It is so well-entrenched they’ve learnt to keep it hidden very well. So, when visitors like you come across, you barely notice. Like every good communist state, information control is paramount despite the veneer of freedom of press. Why control when the population has been brainwashed? Plus, the economy is an utter shambles. There is literally no industry that can be called regionally competitive, in what is supposed to be the fastest growing major economy in the world.

And they are seeped in the political correct nonsense afflicting so much of the world today. They hold their secular credentials as some kind of banner while the state is having almost its entire productive age group flee overseas or to other states. Interact in a normal way? Would you be brought home to the fact that the largest number of IS militants and their supporters from India have come not from the North, as your argument would suggest, or as would’ve been expected, but from Kerala, and specifically two or three districts? How is that normal interaction or the product of amicable relations? Please spare me the hogwash.

You see, these things don’t come into relief if you look at it as is. For people in the Eastern Bloc, life was perfectly
normal under communism. They were barred from visits overseas and their information channels were all controlled so they could never tell whether they were doing well or not. Which is why 1989 and 1991 and the decade after that was such a shock to them. This explains the one-way traffic these days to Western Europe from the Iron Curtain. It also explains the exodus from Venezuela (almost 20% of the population in four years) in the general direction of evil, capitalist, imperialist, racist USA.

All India was under the Communist spell for much of that time, and Kerala took the lessons to heart. The consequences are similar. If you consider what Kerala began with in 1950, and compare its trajectory to other similar polities in Asia, that is when the gross idiocy of its politics and economics, carried out over 5 decades, comes to the inglorious relief it deserves. Kerala has one of the longest coastlines in India, it sits at the head of the Indian Ocean and has multiple natural
harbours which are better than Mumbai.

The people are supposedly more literate and has a relatively deep middle class compared to many other Indian states. The lifestyle, environment and general cuisine attunes them to be generally more productive and healthy. What is there today to show for all that? Like Eastern Europe, the mother of all aging crises beckons the state today, as almost the entire productive age gap forage elsewhere to spend their productive lifespans. Political correctness is so jarring that among Keralites, the first they try to establish with a stranger is the religion, so that the appropriate conversation can be had. It is a nauseating mind-flup.

Like I said, with the Muslims, regardless of location, it is just a matter of them getting sensitized to the fundamentals of their doctrine for them to turn against the natives. Why is it fair in your opinion for Hindus to feel constantly at unease over the status of their political rights in the only land they can call home? Mind you, I bear no ill-will against the Muslims, despite what I am saying. They are a perfectly normal people living lives as they choose. I mingle with Muslims freely and normally as you would describe and call many of them friends. Many of them are, horror of horrors, Pakistani. I don’t mind as the political rights between us are set in stone. Despite Kashmir, there is really no contest for common ground between Indians and Pakistanis. Truthfully, is that the situation between Indians and Muslims in India? Is that what is driving the political conversation today? Isn’t it fear and insecurity, justified in many cases, the root of politics in India today?

It happens so that they like their own space, separate from others and dominant where possible. Their doctrine demands they hate idol worshippers and unbelievers and wage war on them or convert them ie eliminate their culture. The geographic space to do that has been granted previously. It also happens that once they physically become a dominant group, others tend to flee from their midst - please see, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Somalia, Yemen, Turkey, Jammu Kashmir (India) just to name a few. I am pointing to the consequences of the gross double-standards which are applied viz. Indian natives. Every other state around India has a religious doctrine - Pakistan and Bangladesh and Maldives Islam, Sri Lanka and Bhutan Buddhism. Even Nepal has become secular. Myanmar is Buddhist. China is Communist by doctrine. No one seems to be complaining about that.

In my view, it is just painful and grossly unfair to preach enforced cultural assimilation and tolerance of antagonistic cultures to Indians while others happily go around fortifying their own castles. You claim Britain invented India; Britain invented Pakistan too by that token. Why is there no preaching about tolerance and secularism from your likes there? Or in Bangladesh? It is by nothing more than historical accident that Muslims have ended up living in a land of polytheists.

Their doctrine teaches them, not unlike Christianity, to hate all aspects of it. Come to think of it, there are few religious doctrines with as varied an alphabet soup of hatred for others as the Abrahamic religions. Kaffir, idol worshipper, apostate, witch, mawali, jahil, arzal, pagan etc are not Indian terms. And cultural Indians are all that and more. Tell me, why is it right for Hindus and other cultural Indians to be at the receiving end of all this?

You are not unlike those who vouched for the active cultural annihilation of the Native Americans back in the day, who had their culture, ancient and wonderful, progressively destroyed and reduced to a caricature through forced assimilation. You just cover it under the garb of tolerance and secularism. There is no need for a law enforcing tolerance when people are generally friendly and non-hostile to each other. It is not a quality that needs shouting about or parading. There are no parades of tolerance between Hindus and Sikhs or Buddhists and Sikhs or Jains and Hindus. Why? Because it is not an issue.

You see, your inherent racism, and I am sorry to use the term, comes to the fore, when you suggest the British were somehow different from the other alien invaders of India. British culture is foreign to India; so is the culture of the Abrahamic minorities. It is not to Haridwar that Muslims turn to prayer 5 times a day.

I could go on and on and dig my own grave accusing me of being what, a Nazi or something. As I’ve said, I am neither a nationalist and by now you must know that I am not a socialist. I see what I see and make observations. I do not see a nation as a gift from above but a product of actions from ground up. Forcing a doctrinaire population (Abrahamics) to live amongst a non-doctrinaire people (polytheists) and being nice to them while having them constantly worry about their political status and grovel in insecurity is a cruel inhumane experiment being played by utopian idiots with the lives of millions no, billions.